Personalized agents must decide whether retrieved user memory should be used, ignored, updated, or queried before it affects a task. We develop an empirical audit protocol for structured intermediate outputs: auditing dataset shortcuts, isolating bundled prompt changes, testing answer-associated labels and decomposed evidence, and retaining provider-level execution failures. A 480-example synthetic development set initially suggested large gains from a state-structured prompt bundle, but TF-IDF diagnostics showed lexical separability and no positive standalone Ignore cases. We therefore build a frozen 160-example controlled counterfactual set with 40 matched four-way families and rule-derived reference policies. There, exposing four state definitions improves accuracy, but adding an isolated explicit state-output field does not significantly improve policy accuracy for Llama-3.3-70B and gives only a marginal, non-significant gain for GPT-OSS-120B. Supplying benchmark-associated state labels shifts policy predictions; because those labels deterministically map to policies, this is label-conditioning, not evidence of a faithful mechanism. Family-level and seed-stability analyses show that example accuracy overstates counterfactual consistency. A decomposed semantic-evidence follow-up does not improve routing for the cleanly evaluated endpoint, while the GPT-OSS condition fails provider-side request validation. We evaluate policy classification only.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is usually evaluated by whether the final answer is correct. Under knowledge conflict, this hides a key question: did the model follow retrieved evidence, rely on its parametric prior, or produce a post-hoc rationale? We study this as context compliance, the regime in which retrieved context controls the answer even when it conflicts with the model’s prior knowledge. We introduce Context-Driven Decomposition (CDD), an inference-time diagnostic intervention that elicits contextual and prior answers, isolates the conflicting premise, and records a resolution trace that can be perturbed. Across Epi-Scale stress tests, TruthfulQA misconception injection, and cross-model reruns, CDD makes three behaviors visible. First, misleading retrieval can severely degrade accuracy: under worst-case injected context (a TruthfulQA misconception-injection probe), Standard RAG reaches only 15.0%. Second, better answers need not share the same mechanism: CDD improves adversarial accuracy on Gemini-2.5-Flash and shows directional gains across Claude variants, yet trace-perturbation sensitivity is high only on Gemini. Third, explicit decomposition improves controlled-conflict robustness over a conflict-aware instruction baseline on localized factual conflicts, with the clearest margins on Entity Swap (88.0% vs 79.3%) and Logical Contradiction (83.2% vs 75.4%). We frame RAG conflict handling as an observability problem.

Cited RAG evaluation often treats visible sources as a grounding signal, but a real, topically relevant citation can still under-warrant the attached wording. We study this diagnostic failure as citation laundering: a related source is presented as warrant for an over-strong claim. We introduce ForceBench, a contrastive stress test for evidence-force calibration. Each item holds a cited passage fixed and pairs an evidence-calibrated claim with a localized force-raised variant across five operational axes: relation, modality, scope, temporal validity, and numeric specificity. A calibrated evaluator should score the evidence-calibrated claim higher. Headline experiments use a fixed, locality-filtered 198-pair evaluation set. A citation-presence sanity check is uninformative by design; token and entity overlap still violate monotonicity on 32.8–36.4% of pairs. Across four reported model judges, standard generic support prompting is insufficient for this force-calibration stress test (aggregate MVR 47.2%), while explicit warrant-strength prompting lowers MVR to 24.5% but remains imperfect. We release the benchmark, prompts, outputs, and plug-in pipeline so citation evaluators can report monotonicity violation rate and force sensitivity alongside conventional support metrics.

Despite their widespread success, Text-to-Image models (T2I) still struggle to produce images that are both aesthetically pleasing and faithful to the user’s input text. We introduce DreamSync, a simple yet effective training algorithm that improves T2I models to be faithful to the text input. DreamSync utilizes large vision-language models (VLMs) to effectively identify the fine-grained discrepancies between generated images and the text inputs and enable T2I models to self-improve without labeled data. First, it prompts the model to generate several candidate images for a given input text. Then, it uses two VLMs to select the best generation: a Visual Question Answering model that measures the alignment of generated images to the text, and another that measures the generation’s aesthetic quality. After selection, we use LoRA to iteratively finetune the T2I model to guide its generation towards the selected best generations. DreamSync does not need any additional human annotation, model architecture changes, or reinforcement learning. Despite its simplicity, DreamSync improves both the semantic alignment and aesthetic appeal of two diffusion-based T2I models, evidenced by multiple benchmarks (+1.7% on TIFA, +2.9% on DSG1K, +3.4% on VILA aesthetic) and human evaluation shows that DreamSync improves text rendering compared to SDXL by 18.5% on DSG1K benchmark.

Vision-and-Language Navigation wayfinding agents can be enhanced by exploiting automatically generated navigation instructions. However, existing instruction generators have not been comprehensively evaluated, and the automatic evaluation metrics used to develop them have not been validated. Using human wayfinders, we show that these generators perform on par with or only slightly better than a template-based generator and far worse than human instructors. Furthermore, we discover that BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR and CIDEr are ineffective for evaluating grounded navigation instructions. To improve instruction evaluation, we propose an instruction-trajectory compatibility model that operates without reference instructions. Our model shows the highest correlation with human wayfinding outcomes when scoring individual instructions. For ranking instruction generation systems, if reference instructions are available we recommend using SPICE.

The news coverage of events often contains not one but multiple incompatible accounts of what happened. We develop a query-based system that extracts compatible sets of events (scenarios) from such data, formulated as one-class clustering. Our system incrementally evaluates each event’s compatibility with already selected events, taking order into account. We use synthetic data consisting of article mixtures for scalable training and evaluate our model on a new human-curated dataset of scenarios about real-world news topics. Stronger neural network models and harder synthetic training settings are both important to achieve high performance, and our final scenario construction system substantially outperforms baselines based on prior work.

Distributional data tells us that a man can swallow candy, but not that a man can swallow a paintball, since this is never attested. However both are physically plausible events. This paper introduces the task of semantic plausibility: recognizing plausible but possibly novel events. We present a new crowdsourced dataset of semantic plausibility judgments of single events such as man swallow paintball. Simple models based on distributional representations perform poorly on this task, despite doing well on selection preference, but injecting manually elicited knowledge about entity properties provides a substantial performance boost. Our error analysis shows that our new dataset is a great testbed for semantic plausibility models: more sophisticated knowledge representation and propagation could address many of the remaining errors.

During natural disasters and conflicts, information about what happened is often confusing and messy, and distributed across many sources. We would like to be able to automatically identify relevant information and assemble it into coherent narratives of what happened. To make this task accessible to neural models, we introduce Story Salads, mixtures of multiple documents that can be generated at scale. By exploiting the Wikipedia hierarchy, we can generate salads that exhibit challenging inference problems. Story salads give rise to a novel, challenging clustering task, where the objective is to group sentences from the same narratives. We demonstrate that simple bag-of-words similarity clustering falls short on this task, and that it is necessary to take into account global context and coherence.

We explore techniques to maximize the effectiveness of discourse information in the task of authorship attribution. We present a novel method to embed discourse features in a Convolutional Neural Network text classifier, which achieves a state-of-the-art result by a significant margin. We empirically investigate several featurization methods to understand the conditions under which discourse features contribute non-trivial performance gains, and analyze discourse embeddings.

We test whether distributional models can do one-shot learning of definitional properties from text only. Using Bayesian models, we find that first learning overarching structure in the known data, regularities in textual contexts and in properties, helps one-shot learning, and that individual context items can be highly informative.